Re: Regression introduced bybfcfaa77bdf0f775263e906015982a608df01c76 (vfs: use 'unsigned long' accessesfor dcache name comparison and hashing)

[Al Viro]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 08:24:45PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> OK, full_name_hash()/hash_name() definitely have a mismatch and it's on the
> names of length 8*n: trivial experiment shows that we have
> name hash_name full_name_hash
> a 61 61
> ab 6261 6261
> abc 636261 636261
> abcd 64636261 64636261
> abcdabc 64c6c4c2 64c6c4c2
> abcdabcd efcead5 c8c6c4c2
> abcdabcd9 efceb0e efceb0e
> 
> Linus, which way do you prefer to shift it?  Should hash_name() change to
> match full_name_hash() or should it be the other way round?
> 
> What happens is that you get multiplication by 9 and adding 0 in the former,
> after having added the last full word.  In the latter we add the last full
> word, see that there's nothing left and bugger off.

Guys, could you check if this fixes it?

diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
index 13e6a1f..7451d6f8 100644
--- a/fs/namei.c
+++ b/fs/namei.c
@@ -1439,10 +1439,10 @@ unsigned int full_name_hash(const unsigned char *name, unsigned int len)
 
 	for (;;) {
 		a = *(unsigned long *)name;
-		hash *= 9;
 		if (len < sizeof(unsigned long))
 			break;
 		hash += a;
+		hash *= 9;
 		name += sizeof(unsigned long);
 		len -= sizeof(unsigned long);
 		if (!len)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/